So I read with some interest an article by Adam Frank espousing the
idea of removing the benefits of science from those who deny science. He
starts with examples like “alien visitations to the healing power of
eskimo rituals”, and states that there is “no price for them to pay for
believing” in these ridiculous things. “They still enjoy the fruits of
science, from iPads to modern medicine, even as they profess belief in
ideas without any sound basis.” Further, “Science is not a lunch buffet.
Yes, the individual results on small, focused issues like the
coffee-bad/coffee-good debate may flip back and forth. When research
domains mature into overarching paradigms, however, its time to take
notice.” Finally, “Don't pick and choose between the science you like
and the ones you deny. Chose between science and no science at all.

Hand in your cell phones, please.”

I’ve stated this before, in the form of removing medical treatment for
those who refuse vaccines. I am never completely serious, but it is
frustrating to see the dichotomy.

The issue I have with this article is one that I’ve written on before
here and more here: he focusses on the comparison between
evolution denial and climate denial. It really drives me nuts! I am not
entirely convinced by the climate data that the situation is as dire as
is claimed. I am not sure whether the climate scientists have provided a
clear enough picture, without distortion, cherry-picking, and
exaggeration. I don’t have to deny all of physics, chemistry, and
biology to hold this position as creationists have to do. Perhaps I’m
what is sometimes called a luke-warmist, but even on its best days
climate science is nowhere close to as well supported as evolution.